I have it running currently and it's using no processor and 250 MB of RAM. That could probably be reduced but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. In my experience (as a developer and a user), inefficient processor usage is very rarely an issue. Inefficient I/O or RAM on the other hand can often be a problem.
And thanks, I understand the statement just fine. I disagree with it.
There you go again! See the only way you can disagree with someone on/. is if you're an idiot and are not capable of understanding what they said. So you must be an idiot.
(/s in case it was not obvious)
I mentioned "treating people like crap" (which I would consider a synonym for abusive hostility). He then said that at elite levels you just can't have a continuously pleasant social atmosphere. The clear implication is that the former is the only alternative to the latter - otherwise why would he even bring it up?
Possibly, if I'm remembering right there was more too. But as I said it's been years, and I'm really not interested in getting into a ticky tack discussion about whether Scott Adams is or is not a jerk, if that's what you're trying to get started.
Last time I read anything from him, he saw absolutely nothing wrong with his behavior or attitudes, and they were working well for him. He certainly has enough money to get away with pretty much anything he wants to do. I would be surprised if he ever sees any need to change.
That doesn't sound totally out of place. I wasn't suggesting that nobody would get defensive, or that there might not be moments of discomfort. To me, there's a difference between putting up some initial resistance to change when corrected, and taking offense at the correction.
When there's a bridge built and you can get high quality communication going it's worth it.
Agreed. I'm just glad I don't work with any of these people who seem to think that toxicity is the only way to get good work out of people. I kind of feel sorry for them.
For example, he talked about how he generally interrupts other people because he can tell what they're going to say, what he has to say is more important, and he doesn't want to waste his time listening to them. He concluded that this was an appropriate and efficient means of interpersonal interaction, and ALSO claimed (not at the same time but without sarcasm) to be a good listener.
Over time, it became clear why he got divorced. I don't remember other examples; it's been years.
No, it says the average is 216 times a year. That doesn't mean most people eat out every other day. More likely is there are people who eat out every day, even multiple times a day, people who almost never eat out, and people in the middle. Just from that one number we can't tell what the distribution is.
More false dichotomies. The idea that there are only two possibilities: abusive hostility and constant pleasant social interactions. It's not true. There's another option - a positive and respectful atmosphere, that can include difficult conversations, disagreement, and even confrontation. If you're claiming that every elite environment includes belittlement, hostility, and personal attacks, can you back up that claim? If not, what are you claiming?
I used to read his blog but I stopped when it became apparent that he is a really unpleasant person. I don't know if he changed or I just started noticing.
I don't agree with your assertion. In my 20+ year career in software I don't recall anyone ever being offended at someone's suggestion for improvement. Do some people get offended no matter what? Sure. But that is a personal problem with that individual and not related to the environment. It's also not a reason to have a toxic environment. Is it inevitable that someone will be offended, no matter the team and no matter the techniques and processes? No.
Except most people don't enjoy working in a culture of fear for very long. It's likely to drive away a lot of people who would otherwise contribute quality code.
What's being suggested is not switching from openly hostile toxicity to passive-agressive toxicity. What's being suggested is to switch to respectful, open, clear communication devoid of personal attacks.
You can care about both, but at some point you have to choose between the two.
Why? Do you not believe it is possible to provide guidance to someone in order to improve their work without being disrespectful or hostile? Because I can assure you it is.
If you watch the video, it's really not some creepy omg Donald Trump looks like Obama now! It just makes the altered video look a little strange and obviously doctored. I would say nothing to worry about.
In fact, teens today are less vulnerable to crime and car crashes because they're staying inside (and IIRC to STDs and pregnancy because they're having sex less). But they're more vulnerable to obesity and depression.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember running WinSOCKS if you wanted to do networking? Yeah I'll take progress, thanks.
I have it running currently and it's using no processor and 250 MB of RAM. That could probably be reduced but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. In my experience (as a developer and a user), inefficient processor usage is very rarely an issue. Inefficient I/O or RAM on the other hand can often be a problem.
Hm, my $20 belt is still fine after about three years...
And thanks, I understand the statement just fine. I disagree with it.
There you go again! See the only way you can disagree with someone on /. is if you're an idiot and are not capable of understanding what they said. So you must be an idiot.
(/s in case it was not obvious)
I mentioned "treating people like crap" (which I would consider a synonym for abusive hostility). He then said that at elite levels you just can't have a continuously pleasant social atmosphere. The clear implication is that the former is the only alternative to the latter - otherwise why would he even bring it up?
Possibly, if I'm remembering right there was more too. But as I said it's been years, and I'm really not interested in getting into a ticky tack discussion about whether Scott Adams is or is not a jerk, if that's what you're trying to get started.
Last time I read anything from him, he saw absolutely nothing wrong with his behavior or attitudes, and they were working well for him. He certainly has enough money to get away with pretty much anything he wants to do. I would be surprised if he ever sees any need to change.
When there's a bridge built and you can get high quality communication going it's worth it.
Agreed. I'm just glad I don't work with any of these people who seem to think that toxicity is the only way to get good work out of people. I kind of feel sorry for them.
For example, he talked about how he generally interrupts other people because he can tell what they're going to say, what he has to say is more important, and he doesn't want to waste his time listening to them. He concluded that this was an appropriate and efficient means of interpersonal interaction, and ALSO claimed (not at the same time but without sarcasm) to be a good listener.
Over time, it became clear why he got divorced. I don't remember other examples; it's been years.
thats_the_joke.jpg
No, it says the average is 216 times a year. That doesn't mean most people eat out every other day. More likely is there are people who eat out every day, even multiple times a day, people who almost never eat out, and people in the middle. Just from that one number we can't tell what the distribution is.
More false dichotomies. The idea that there are only two possibilities: abusive hostility and constant pleasant social interactions. It's not true. There's another option - a positive and respectful atmosphere, that can include difficult conversations, disagreement, and even confrontation. If you're claiming that every elite environment includes belittlement, hostility, and personal attacks, can you back up that claim? If not, what are you claiming?
I used to read his blog but I stopped when it became apparent that he is a really unpleasant person. I don't know if he changed or I just started noticing.
I don't agree with your assertion. In my 20+ year career in software I don't recall anyone ever being offended at someone's suggestion for improvement. Do some people get offended no matter what? Sure. But that is a personal problem with that individual and not related to the environment. It's also not a reason to have a toxic environment. Is it inevitable that someone will be offended, no matter the team and no matter the techniques and processes? No.
Except most people don't enjoy working in a culture of fear for very long. It's likely to drive away a lot of people who would otherwise contribute quality code.
What's being suggested is not switching from openly hostile toxicity to passive-agressive toxicity. What's being suggested is to switch to respectful, open, clear communication devoid of personal attacks.
I hope Scott Adams follows his lead...
Somehow people seem to think it's only possible to enforce high code standards by treating other people like crap. Which is really weird.
You can care about both, but at some point you have to choose between the two.
Why? Do you not believe it is possible to provide guidance to someone in order to improve their work without being disrespectful or hostile? Because I can assure you it is.
Is that so hard?
Based on the comments I'm seeing, apparently it's quite a challenge.
I didn't know that - interesting, thanks!
Dependency on any sort of fiat currency is disadvantageous
Compared to what?
If you watch the video, it's really not some creepy omg Donald Trump looks like Obama now! It just makes the altered video look a little strange and obviously doctored. I would say nothing to worry about.
So still not as good as 4G, which is specified as capable of 1Gpbs. Maybe 6G will finally equal what 4G was supposed to be.
In fact, teens today are less vulnerable to crime and car crashes because they're staying inside (and IIRC to STDs and pregnancy because they're having sex less). But they're more vulnerable to obesity and depression.